Jump to content


Brigham Young & The Journal Of Discourses


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
291 replies to this topic

#21 BCSpace

BCSpace

    Right Divider of Systematic LDS Theology

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,013 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:41 PM

Quote

What Brigham Young and both of his counselors in the First Presidency said is that some sins are too grave for Christ's blood to atone for, and so certain sinners must willingly have their own blood offered in sacrifice by the elders of the Church rather than rely on Christ's blood which did not operate in their case

And I would say there is truth in BY's statement.  However, I would not say that there aren't any specific sins that the blood of Christ doesn't Atone for except for the scriptural "unpardonable sin".  The blood of Christ WILL Atone for adultery and murder, even in combination with each other.  What the blood of Christ does not Atone for besides the unpardonable sin are sins that are not repented of.....

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
D&C 19:17

In other words....

And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.
Alma 11:37

Edited by BCSpace, 29 October 2008 - 08:42 PM.

BYU Combined Choirs perform "Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing"
LDS doctrine defined.  The first bullet point is the key.
Capitalism from the Lord: Law of Consecration.
Evolution Primer Evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine in any way.

#22 wes

wes

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:43 PM

View PostDuncan, on Oct 29 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

Brigham Young has an alibi, he was not there at the MMM. If you can place him there shooting people, please show us the proof.

My point was that there were more than 2 murders in 1850's Utah as you claimed.  Considering the bloody nature of Young's statement it is not surprising something like the MMM took place whether he was present or not.

Edited by wes, 29 October 2008 - 08:50 PM.


#23 Flyonthewall

Flyonthewall

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,978 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:50 PM

View Postwes, on Oct 29 2008, 09:22 PM, said:

I have found the responses uncompelling.  There is no context in which Brigham's statement can be justified.  He both endorses murder and admits he himself would do it under certain circumstances.  His words are vengeful, un-Christlike, and just plain scary.  I find it hard to believe that a prophet of God who claims to be representing the true gospel of Christ would ever make such statements.
Brigham Young was taking a Biblical account, and using it to make a point(Numbers 25:7-13 or so).
We believe that sins that are unrepented of will not be covered by the atonement, and we will have to pay the price for them.  In other words, the blood of Christ, which was used in the atonement will not cover unrepented sins.
The emphasis of his talk was to not take the covenants made with the Lord lightly.

Brigham Young never advocated killing anyone, so what exactly is it that troubles you?

#24 Duncan

Duncan

    Canadian Jester and Knowledge Navigator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,645 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:51 PM

View Postwes, on Oct 29 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

My point was that there were more than 2 murders in 1850's Utah.  Considering the bloody nature of Young's statement it is not surprising something like the MMM took place whether he was present or not.


So now we are switching to the MMM and Pres. Young's role in it, allright then read the new book on MMM published by OUP. I question the connection between the talk given in March 1856 in SLC and the MMM on Sept. 1857
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)

#25 LifeOnaPlate

LifeOnaPlate

    Primary Chorister [sic]

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,870 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:56 PM

View Postwes, on Oct 29 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

I must say that after reading the responses to this thread (including the links to other threads regarding this issue) my skepticism has only deepened.


I'm shocked.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition."
-C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).

#26 Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui

    Fears No Kimchee

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,848 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:56 PM

Here is the complete context of the quote (emphasis mine):

I will now speak upon another subject; one which I have touched upon many times, but which, to this day, is but little understood. I allude to the organization of the spirit and the body, the distinction between the two, and their operations. This subject is not well understood, and generally not much reflected upon, but is one which the Saints have got to learn, if they ever learn the real organization of man. Then they will know and understand the peculiarities of our present organization, and how liable mankind are to submit to its weaknesses, and to the influences of the powers that rule over them.
Were you in possession of this knowledge, you would be more compassionate. As severely as I sometimes talk to you, my soul is full of compassion. It has ever been my study to understand myself, for by so doing I can understand my neighbors.

If this people would apply their minds to wisdom, with regard to themselves, they would be more compassionate than they are now.
From what is at times said here, it might be inferred that every one who did not walk to the line was at once going to be destroyed, but who has
been hurt? Who is about to be killed? Who is about to be taken out of the way?
When this people have lived long enough upon the earth, to have the principles of life and salvation disseminated among them, and to have their children taught in those principles, so that they fully know the principles of eternal salvation, then let us or our children turn away from the commandments of God, as some do now, and I could tell you what will be done with them.

Brother Wooley has said, the time is not far distant, but it will never come until the inhabitants of the earth, and especially those who have been gathered together, have a sufficient time to be educated in the celestial law, so that each person may understand for himself. Then if they transgress against the light and knowledge they possess, some will be stoned to death, and "judgment will be laid to the line, and righteousness to the plummet." But people will never be taken and sacrificed for their ignorance, when they have had no opportunity to know and understand the truth. Such a proceeding would be contrary to the economy of heaven. But after we receive and understand things as they are, if we then disobey, we may look for the chastening hand of the Almighty.

If we could learn ourselves, we should see thousands and thousands of weaknesses in the people. They turn to the right and to the left, to this and that which is wrong; yet if we did know and see things as they are, we should understand that thousands of those acts are performed in ignorance.

I presume there are people hearing me talk, who would give the riches of the Indies, if they had them in their possession, to be able to obtain the mind and will of God concerning themselves. They would give all they possess on the earth, or expect to possess, were they in possession of keys by which they could know the path to walk in. What are we going to do with this class of persons? I will tell you what I am going to do with them, so far as I am concerned. I am going to give them my faith, confidence, prayers, and full fellowship. And when they get through with this probation, if they have done, all the time, according to the best they knew, God will not hold them responsible for what they did not know, and they will be received, through the merits of the Son, into the kingdom of our Father.

I mention this to inform the people, that they may understand what they should do with regard to the law of God, and the transgression thereof. The law is very strict; and in this congregation there are men and women who, with uplifted hands to heaven, before the Father, the Son, and all the holy angels, made solemn covenants that they never would do thus and so. For example, one obligation is, "I will never have anything to do with any of the daughters of Eve, unless they are given to me of the Lord." Men will call God to witness that they never will transgress this law, and promise to live a virtuous life, so far as intercourse with females is concerned; but what can you see? A year will not pass away before some few of them are guilty of creeping into widows' houses, and into bed with the wives of their brethren, debauching one woman here, and another there. Do we enforce upon them the strict penalty of the law? Not yet. I hope their conduct arises from their ignorance, but let me transgress my covenant, and the case would be different. I want to live as long as I can, on the earth, but I would not like to live to violate my covenants; I would rather go behind the vail before doing so.

A few of the men and women who go into the house of the Lord, and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants. Do I have compassion on them? Yes, I do have mercy on them, for there is something in their organization which they do not understand; and there are but few in this congregation who do understand it.

You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God." Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.

Every man and women has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.
Again, suppose the parties are, not caught in their iniquity, and it passes along unnoticed, shall I have compassion on them? Yes, I will have compassion on them, for transgressions of the nature already named, or for those of any other description. If the Lord so order it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do.
There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants.
To what degree? Will they have to go to hell? They are in hell enough now. I do not wish them in a greater hell, when their consciences condemn them all the time. Let compassion reign in our bosoms. Try to comprehend how weak we are, how we are organized, how the spirit and the flesh are continually at war.

Bernard
"Are you over Fool's Hill yet?"
Warren Coombs Shawcroft, cowboy

#27 LifeOnaPlate

LifeOnaPlate

    Primary Chorister [sic]

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,870 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 09:04 PM

Pres. Young said he had men come to him and ask to "atone" in this manner. He told them it wasn't necessary. Why? And more importantly, what critic here can find the quote to which I am now referring?
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition."
-C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).

#28 wes

wes

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 11:41 PM

It seems to me that the only valid response to this is to condemn it as wrong.  What's so hard about that?

#29 emeliza

emeliza

    SSCE/UMW peon

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,305 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 07:53 AM

View Postwes, on Oct 29 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

I have found the responses uncompelling.  There is no context in which Brigham's statement can be justified.  He both endorses murder and admits he himself would do it under certain circumstances.  His words are vengeful, un-Christlike, and just plain scary.  I find it hard to believe that a prophet of God who claims to be representing the true gospel of Christ would ever make such statements.


Try reading the Old Testament.

Also I don't think BY was endorsing murder.  I don't think his words were vengeful or un-Christlike.  

BY was stating that when you do something like adultery there is a consequence.  However as Duncan pointed out he also went on to say that unless we ourselves have clean hands we can not do the judging or condemning.  I recall Christ saying the same thing.
When you blame others, you give up your power to change. - Dr. Robert Anthony

#30 ERayR

ERayR

    Stranger in a Strange Land

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,489 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 07:58 AM

View Postwes, on Oct 30 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

It seems to me that the only valid response to this is to condemn it as wrong.  What's so hard about that?

wes:
Unless you are being deliberatly obtuse I don't see how you can not see that BY was making a point of how serious breaking ones covenants with God is.  I see nothing in the talk that condones killing.  He is stating that it would be better for the covenant breaker to have this happen because they could at least then claim that they had not had the opportunity to repent and that their own blood had been shed.

#31 Duncan

Duncan

    Canadian Jester and Knowledge Navigator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,645 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 08:00 AM

Wes,

If you ever meet President Brigham Young then you can ask him for an apology.
“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows—as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway an undisputed sceptre”.
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)

#32 LifeOnaPlate

LifeOnaPlate

    Primary Chorister [sic]

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,870 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 08:14 AM

View Postwes, on Oct 30 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

It seems to me that the only valid response to this is to condemn it as wrong.  What's so hard about that?

From my perspective I think Brigham's statement was wrong. But I also recognize I am imposing my own perspective onto the past, which makes a difference. Also, in the thread I linked to earlier (the one you implied that you read) I said several things along this line. Such as:

Quote

Some sermons obviously, from our standpoint, got out of hand. Some of the preaching likely affected people in bad ways.

Quote

I should add I also understand why critics or skeptics can take this quote and run with it.


Quote

Again, I don't blame you for taking it and running with it. I see the problems in the rhetoric...It's a shock to read.

Quote

I think it was a poor sermon, indeed, from my perspective. I'm not attempting to say "oh, it's ok, everyone, nothing to see here." I'm trying to get and give further insight.



etc.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition."
-C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).

#33 TrespassersW

TrespassersW

    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 09:15 AM

View Postwes, on Oct 29 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

After starting a thread titled, "Questions And Investigation Of Mormonism, Why is this so often considered anti-mormon?" it was suggested that I start another one based on the following statement by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses:

â??Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and PUT A JAVELIN THROUGH BOTH OF THEM, YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, AND THEY WOULD ATONE FOR THEIR SINS, AND BE RECEIVED INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would DO IT WITH CLEAN HANDS... â??There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, YOUR OWN BLOOD MUST ATONE FOR IT;...â? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)

Here is a link to the original thread:

http://www.mormonapo...showtopic=38693

I am curious as to the context in which this statement was made because it gives me reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of Mormonism.
Do the events described in Numbers 25--to which Brigham Young was referring--likewise give you reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of Judeo-Christianity?
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."   Friedrich Nietzsche

#34 The Nehor

The Nehor

    Death, Destroyer of Worlds

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,168 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:08 AM

(cough) Troll (cough)

Tell us Wes what you think of the discourse as a whole or are primary sources off-limits to your investigation?
Twisting God's work into my own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing.

I support NCMO.

We enter this world naked, screaming, and covered in blood...the fun doesn't have to end there...

#35 wes

wes

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:28 AM

View PostThe Nehor, on Oct 30 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

(cough) Troll (cough)

Tell us Wes what you think of the discourse as a whole or are primary sources off-limits to your investigation?

I am unimpressed with the discourse as a whole and do not see how the portion I quoted can be justified by anything else from it.

#36 emeliza

emeliza

    SSCE/UMW peon

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,305 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:33 AM

View Postwes, on Oct 30 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

I am unimpressed with the discourse as a whole and do not see how the portion I quoted can be justified by anything else from it.


So did you read it as a whole or did you only read the stuff you wrote us about?  Have you read other discourses or just the ones that are on the 'anti' sites?  That makes a difference.  I bet I could take something Christ wrote and make it sound terrible.  It is when you put it all together with every thing else that He said that it makes sense and sounds good.
When you blame others, you give up your power to change. - Dr. Robert Anthony

#37 The Nehor

The Nehor

    Death, Destroyer of Worlds

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,168 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:38 AM

View Postwes, on Oct 30 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

I am unimpressed with the discourse as a whole and do not see how the portion I quoted can be justified by anything else from it.

That was a beautifully vague answer.  That's the kind of thing I wrote in English class when I hadn't read the assignment.

Okay, what did you think the point of the rest of it was?  What was Brigham trying to say?
Twisting God's work into my own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing.

I support NCMO.

We enter this world naked, screaming, and covered in blood...the fun doesn't have to end there...

#38 selek

selek

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,806 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:43 AM

View PostThe Nehor, on Oct 30 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

That was a beautifully vague answer.  That's the kind of thing I wrote in English class when I hadn't read the assignment.

Okay, what did you think the point of the rest of it was?  What was Brigham trying to say?

Given that wes keeps hitting the same note in the fugue, but won't elaborate on why, and based upon the characteristics emphasized below, I think it's time.

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

The TEW (Troll early warning) system is now activated...

We are under a troll watch condition. This means that there may be a troll in the vicinity. Keep on the lookout for posters without a history making accusatory posts, then leaving the discussion unfinished.

Please be advised this is only a warning. People with a real life may not have time to respond to their own threads and only appear as trolls. Also people who have been indoctrinated by anti-mormon ministries may have TTS (Temporary Troll Syndrome) which is characterized by having a single issue and the desire to debunk all mormonism in a single thread.

Trolls will eventually prove their existance by a complete lack of regard for reason and civility when pushing their point. However, if a troll is actually spotted we will broadcast a troll warning. At which time you will be instructed in emergency troll baiting procedures.

We now return you to your regular broadcast thread.
2 Timothy 1:7
   For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.


'Every man is a hero of his own tale....every man must look on himself as wiser and more intelligent and more virtuous than the rest, so how could he see himself as the villain, or even as a minor character?

And you must have noticed that heroes are never beaten. They may be undone for a while, but they always do themselves up again, and marry the virtuous young gentlewoman.'
- Patrick O'Brian

#39 Flyonthewall

Flyonthewall

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,978 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:49 AM

View Postwes, on Oct 30 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

I am unimpressed with the discourse as a whole and do not see how the portion I quoted can be justified by anything else from it.
It has been pointed out to you that he was not advocating murder of any type, but using a Biblical account to illustrate a point.  Covenants with the Lord were serious business in the OT and resulted in many killings for breaking them.  Brigham Young used this biblical story to illustrate how important covenants still were, and we should keep them or there will be consequences before the Lord.  Notice also, that judgement is not given to us but is in the Lord.
I don't see this as any different from the "hellfire and brimstone" sermons that were rampant for the day.

#40 wes

wes

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:50 AM

View PostThe Nehor, on Oct 30 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

That was a beautifully vague answer.  That's the kind of thing I wrote in English class when I hadn't read the assignment.

Okay, what did you think the point of the rest of it was?  What was Brigham trying to say?

It sounds like a big guilt trip to me.  What do you think of it?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users